Saturday, September 08, 2007

Ive been playing around the Trinity Baptist site to see what these people have been up to with Creationism.

Their pastors blog is full of wonderful giggle-inducing posts (how to deal with Mormons, the BAPTIST way!). Found a post he made on 'science':

I have enclosed a preliminary list of books and websites in order to help you understand some of the most salient arguments for ID, Creation Science and the Genesis account. These resources will expose some of the most glaring and problematic inadequacies of the theory of Evolution. unfortunately, these inadequacies are routinely glossed over or ignored in the college classrooms, and ID and Creation Science are summarily dismissed with a shake of the head or by catagorizing them as merely religious. These books will help to arm you with the facts.

His book list includes The Design Revolution, by Dear Billy, and THE Creationism Classic, The Genesis Flood (among others). WHY OH WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING ID AND CREATIONISM IN THE SAME BOAT?? WHYYY???

14 comments:

Those who hold various religious beliefs would *no doubt* be interested in both. But, I have no idea why you insist that they are the same thing.

You must realize the differences by now. The only similiarity is that, at the root, both theories infer design, although ID could result in the discovery that there is a natural, rather than supernatural, first cause responsible for the design we find in nature.

ID could result in the discovery that there is a natural, rather than supernatural, first cause responsible for the design we find in nature.

I say this because all the leading lights in the ID movement are adamant that ID is only about the identification of design and does not seek to answer any questions about the identity of the designer, the motive of the designer, or the means by which he/she designed.

Please do try to stay on the talking points in the future, dear. kthxbai.

I have to observe any convincing evidence of "design" in nature, I've only seen the half-baked conjectures of Behe, Dembski and others. Declaring a checkmate before you make a single move does not a victory make.

"Youre right. ID and Creationism are totally different things. Like Carls Jr. and Hardies. Or Edy's and Dreyers."

I think "Passion of the Christ and sadomasochistic homoeroticism" is a more apt comparison. One of a category, another is an element within that category.

"WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING ID AND CREATIONISM IN THE SAME BOAT?? WHYYY???"

Well, if the boat was big enough to hold two of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal, surely it can hold two wrong theories with holes big enough to drive trucks through!

I was also going to add that the "natural, rather than supernatural" designer was selection, but Anonymous beat me to it. Of course, selection is not an intelligent designer, so the IDists are still WRONG.

Could it the first self-described ID textbook defined them as identical?

Could it be the very proponants of ID are the ones letting it slip time and again?

Could it be that ID uses the exact same arguments that those calling themselves Creationts use?

You must realize the differences by now. The only similiarity is that, at the root, both theories infer design, although ID could result in the discovery that there is a natural, rather than supernatural, first cause responsible for the design we find in nature.

The only difference is that at least the old fashioned Creationists were honest about what they were doing and didn't try to hide their motives.

Oh, and given that the IDists have repeatedly attacked materialism and defined ID such that it includes features of the universe itself, its clear they don't seriously think the designer could ever be an alien or any other natural entity. The lip-service is just for show.

However it is interesting that you seem willing to jettison God as the creator and first cause.

That should work even for philosophical naturalist...

I think they need to hide their religious biases better than that. Only shallow and superficial thinkers could possibly be fooled by such a cheap scam.

Ftk said: Hmmm...well, if the design we observe in nature is the result of a natural source, there would be the possibility of discovering it ...no?

You missed the objection all together (not that I'm surprised). The point was that you don't even know what ID is about yet continually argue for it.

The basic definition of ID (a la Dembski) includes the idea that looking into design can IN NO WAY discover a designer.

If you can't keep the tenets of your side correct, why the hell should anyone listen to a single thing you say?

And something to think about--which you won't even try--if ID cannot detect a designer, why? As you say, if there is a cause of something, why would investigation into that something not reveal a single thing about it?

Strange, huh? I'm sure you'll be back to reconcile these things for us.